Yes, I see your point. I'd just add that in many cases there are both "raw" and "unique" columns on the stats page, and the tour/signup page hits don't show up in the "raw" columns either.

First - as far as the definition of shaving - Steve has a good point that what most of us from the "old school" would consider shaving is very possibly different than what someone newer to the biz might think is a shave
A real good example is what a "newer" Wm confronted me with at a show - he said that while the sponsor was tracking hits to the site ok, and paying him for signups to that site just fine - he wasnt getting a cut on the sales generated from the little checkbox on the join form that sponsors use (usually pre-checked and known as a cross-sale).
And of course the sponsor had in black and white in their terms and conditions that they did not pay their affiliates for these sales - which I wouldnt expect them to knowing that this where sponsors get a good percentage of their overhead taken care of - it just baffled the WM though

As far as CCBill - there are quite a few programs out there that rely on the fact that since they are using a middleman you will expect things to be on the up and up - something I learned from another WM here - that I should have known but didnt take the time to look at - was that each sponsor can set the number of rebills that get credited to the refferring WM and how much gets credited over time - although you would think that programs advertising rebills at 60% would pay that for the life of the surfer - it might be worthwhile checking that in your ccbill stats to see how long you really get rebills for - I was amazed to see one program had it set for 1 rebill and another that had it set for no rebills.

As Alex also pointed out - it really doesnt matter whether a program uses CCbill or any other software out there - and I dont care what any rep or even owner of an affiliate software company says - if a sponsor "wants" to shave - they can - just depends on how much they are willing to spend towards accomplishing that shave.

With us, if an affiliates trial to full member conversion is truly terrible, we kick them to revshare only to spread the risk.

Well there you go, you learn something new every day! Well, I'll just go and adjust that, shall I...

Ooh, did I say that out loud?

:D

We don't shave. We're nice. Our rebills, like diamonds, are forever.

Damn, I should be in advertising.

|bananna|

The only thing I shave is my pussy ;)

And I don't. SIG POST! SIG POST! Promote me!

It all adds up.

Say a program with 10 sites gets 100 sales.

90 @ 4.95 = 445.50
10 @ 29.95 = 299.50

for a total of 745.00

If 90% are pps @ 30.00 they payout 2,700.00, which is a big nut to crack along with paying for updates and payroll, hosting, promotion...etc.

Of course they get conversions and rebills and some income from exit traffic.

Programs can also "shave" through issuing false credits that appear to rescind an otherwise seemingly legit sale.

This falls under the "one for you, one for me, two for you and one two for me" method of shaving.

Third party processors like CCbill, or DHD - who we use - have a strong incentive to prevent shaving of this sort since they make more money on the affiliate webmaster earning their fair share.

Any program worth its weight in honesty - (cough cough, ahem, like us) - would allow affiliates to conduct audits of their system. If you want to find out if your program is shaving or not then see what happens when you ask to see the books.

I believe unfortunately that shaving is a lot more prevelant than many folks realize.

I agree but usually I think these have more to do with webmasters not reading the terms and conditions closely enough. Certainly if the sponsor says how or if they pay on rebills and/or cross sells should be clearly laid out. Only if it is not spelled out and the sponsor is taking advantage of those rev streams would I consider it shaving - and by that I mean in the classic, as in old school, sense of the term as well.

true revshare program will set cookies to unlimited time.. so even if your surfer visit site directly after a year you will get credit..

most of pps sponsers dont sent cookies at all.. or set it maybe for real short period of time..

this means you will never get credit for sales which happen next day after 1st click etc etc.. so i guess they get lots of "direct" sales.

and dont forget about upsells etc ;)

there's a lot of ways to make money on your surfers.

sponsor will never pay more then what he earns himself ;)

Aww cmon

don't be such Sheep

they all shave, think about how easy it is
you check your stats they grab your ip which comes from some Isp in Texas

so they know they are safe keeping all traffic from New Jersey or Germany

think about it... if your making 2000 dollars a month and they shave you 20%
that's 400 dollars a month
that's a BMW

do you think they are gonna give that up for someone they don't know

They are gonna think everyone else is doing it and they have to stay competitive

and how many afflilates are probably cheating them

Ding...ding...ding!

We have a WINNER! :D

Most major PPS sponsors use PHP session tracking which works a whole lot better than cookie tracking. There are too many cookie blocking systems out there now.

Also if I send the same surfer to the paysite a few days after you and they signup, I figure that I was the one who actually convinced them and should get credit. Otherwise the major traffic pumps like AL4a, World Sex, The Hun could set a gadzillion permanent cookies and nobody would get credit.

That is absurd. Go back to GFY where they will give you a tinfoil hat for free.

LOL. You think its worth the risk for $400? Why would any program shave some little affiliate who sends 75 joins a month and risk your company's credibility and lose the guy who sends you 2500 joins a month?!??

Large programs think in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.. not pocket change, and you dont risk a business of that scale by knowingly defrauding your affiliates.

Unfortunately this is the most accurate statement in this thread. I've yet to touch anything on NATS because of thier claim that it's impossible to shave using NATS. They make that statement either because they don't understand or they think we're idiots.

However, that being said, a good program can make plenty of money without shaving and possibly a lot more because they can get more webmasters interested.

Ohh please..
no offense Steve but

1) its not chump change 20% times thousands of afflitates is HUGE MONEY
Hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

2) the sponsors dont think they will get caught, Nobody ever thinks they are gonna get caught

3) the whole industry is setup to protect cheating sponsors, thats why they keep telling you.... settle it in email and not to take it to the boards blah blah blah

4)with the ip redirecting this stuff is very hard to catch

Actually an IP redirect would be one of the easiest things to catch. But I do agree with the other aspect of what you are saying which is that big companies can use attorneys to try and keep a person quiet - through law suits and/or settlements.

I have first hand knowledge of that being the case...

;)

Doing this to thousands of affiliates only increases the risk exponentially thus making it even more irrational.

Most accusations of shaving are baseless and borderline libelous. It is in the best interest of an affiliate to resolve an issue with the sponsor before resorting to a public forum. This is common sense.

This is a postdicitive conspiracy theory type statement. For example, someone suspects a sponsor is shaving, has no proof or evidence and then resorts to an explanation which can also not be proved and then says 'now prove to ME you arent shaving since you might be doing this'. This is the same logic conspiracy theorists base their arguments on - unproveable postdictive speculations.

Someone from PIBCash will be with you momentarily...

As a wise man once told me - unless you hack your way in and prove that they're not shaving you, they are...

Note that I'm not drawing conclusions about any particular sponsor here, only engaging in speculative debate, so...

I think your argument could go either way. If, as you say, accusations of shaving generally can't be proven, then it seems utterly illogical for a sponsor NOT to shave, since shaving clearly has a major positive impact on sponsor revenue, and cannot be proven absolutely from outside - only inferred by, as you say, "unproveable postdictive speculation."

"OK, guys, we can make a lot more money by shaving in ways that can't be proven and can simply be denied, or we can engage in 'ethics' and lose out on all the extra revenue." What do you think Mr. Trump would choose? How about Sony? Halliburton?

This is completely true.

I haven't been around as long as some, but I've run businesses for most of my adult life. I've never seen an industry so willing to protect cheaters.

If someone complains on a board about a sponsor...what happens to them? They usually get feasted upon by any number of sources that all have a vested interest in keeping the cheating sponsor afloat.

Now, ask yourself these questions:

1. If I were a dishonest sponsor who would I shave?

If I were a dishonest sponsor I would shave the small and the mid-sized affiliates. I would make sure that the big named reputation players never got shaved and got as many bonuses as possible.

2. How would I make sure that all complaints got shot down immediately in the most vicious manner possible?

If Dinkus McFarland, small time affiliate, dares to complain on a board about a sponsor what happens to him? He's ripped apart mercilessly by the sponsor, ripped apart by the big reputation guys who use the program and don't get shaved because they're a big name. Ripped apart by forum whores who's posting for points, prizes, etc...all supplied by board sponsors (which in some cases has been the accused sponsor).

After seeing poor Dinkus get ripped apart, getting ostracized, do you think many other small to mid-sized affiliates would complain? Hell no. Whistle blowers in porn usually have the whistle shoved down their throats.

Or even Gilead Inc - oh shit - I let that one slip - damn Rumsfeld and his ownership in the company that holds the rights to Tamiflu - the wonder drug for bird flu - hmmm I wonder why Bush is appropriating 7 bill for tamiflu (must not be because Rumsfeld was the CEO until 2001 and still has 25 mill stock options)

Frankly, from my perspective... such speculative hypothesis to infer a sponsor is cheating is just lame and assuming all sponsors cheat is even lamer.

I don't disagree completely. I know some sponsors cheat... in fact owners of certain programs told me in no uncertain terms that they have been shaving for years. I am not protecting them. I simply don't need another lawsuit right now.

I am involved in a major law suit in which just one of the issues is that we caught them red handed redirecting traffic to another program from our banners. That is a matter of public record. We would like nothing more than to have the suit be continued in a public forum like federal court where all the records would become public domain.

We are an open book. Any time CE wants to lift the gag order on our arbitration proceedings we would be happy to share every single document, taped deposition, anything and everything - thereby letting webmasters decide for themselves who is right or wrong based on the evidence.

The only reason we can do lawsuits like Acacia and CE is because we have nothing to hide and we are quite willing to put ourselves under such scrutiny where our books, software, etc. can become a matter of public record by being in court. We are open to audits. If you think we cheat then come have a look and prove it.

We don't have "friends" that would defend us. We have plenty of enemies that would love for us to be taken apart by such a scandal. Bring it on.

We run an honest program and insinuating that we don't is aggravating but assuming everyone cheats is just plain unreasonable.

|peace|

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee

www.adultlounge.com